When does the demonstration of a model at a trade fair, or a similar limited availability of a product, constitute novelty-destroying prior disclosure? Although it will depend on the patent claims, the public’s opportunity to investigate the model may be important as demonstrated in the recent case of Wagner v Earlex*. As of the implementation…
Merck Sharp Dohme Corp. and Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Teva Pharma B.V. and Teva UK limited On 15 March 2012, the High Court in England and Wales delivered some useful guidance on when a patentee can obtain an interim injunction in a pharmaceutical patent infringement action. The case was Merck Sharp Dohme Corp. and…
Last April we reported the case of Gedeon Richter plc v Bayer Schering Pharma AG [2011] EWHC 583 (Pat), concerning immediate release formulations of a combination contraceptive product containing the steroidal hormones drospirenone and ethinylestradiol. We can now report the decision of the Court of Appeal in this case (handed down on 7 March 2012)…
The English High Court has upheld the decision of the UK Intellectual Property Office to refuse the grant of a patent for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with zinc (El-Tawil v The Comptroller General of Patents [2012] EWHC 185 (Ch)). Although the case does not break new ground, it provides a useful review…
On 20 January 2012 the Court of Appeal in England heard the case of Apimed Medical Honey v Brightwake Limited [2012] EWCA Civ 5. Apimed owned European Patent (UK) 1,237,561 (‘the Patent’) for an invention of “Medical dressings comprising gelled honey” and this was held invalid for obviousness at first instance in the Patent’s County…
Although a number of issues were raised as to the validity of two patents in the recent Omnipharm v Merial[2001] EWHC 3393 (Pat) case, the most interesting feature of the case was the judge’s approach to the question of inventive step. The case focussed in particular on the role of the doctrine of “obvious to…
The English High Court has recently ruled on the appropriateness of staying validity and infringement proceedings pending a Technical Board of Appeal (“TBA”) decision of the European Patent Office (“EPO”), and on using disclosed documents in parallel foreign proceedings. The parties involved have had a number of skirmishes recently in various courts throughout the world….
The general rule in UK litigation is that the successful party is entitled to its costs. One exception to this rule, peculiar to patent cases, is a so-called ‘Earth Closet’ order. If an alleged infringer introduces a new piece of prior art, after service of its original Grounds of Invalidity, an Earth Closet order enables…
We revisit this case, not this time regarding the question of what constitutes the ‘making’ of an invention as resolved by the Court of Appeal in March 2011, but with regards to the question of costs in relation to Schütz as an exclusive licensee. The general position under English law is if an exclusive licence…
On 8 November 2011, in the case of Fresenius v Carefusion, the English Court of Appeal declared that “the Earth Closet order should be consigned to the place that bears its name.” The “Earth Closet” or See v Scott Paine Order was an idiosyncratic but potentially very important principle of English patent law. The Order…
